Somewhere in chapter 2 there is a story of botanist who saves species from extinction on Hawaii. Now, with this whole book being about porosity of the plant world, of blurring lines of human and plant, of hinting at the unity of life, I struggle with this concept of extinction. If life ebbs and flows, if the plant may be a decentralised brain, what is this distinction between life and death attached to particular species? It seems a mistaken endeavour almost, to protect these species. It is simultaneously a labour of love, and I don't want these plants to die out. At the same time, this attitude seems to betray the porosity of life and death, clinging on to something in particular. Now I wonder if I can solve this dilemma through arguing that the botanist works out of love. That the activity of sustaining the plants is his source of love and beauty, and this must not be argued with. If that is the case, could I also argue that say a billionaire's source of love is power, and expansion, such that his work could not be argued with?